top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Wise Intervention

If the Centre’s response to the NEET protests has been an admixture of vacillation, force and defensiveness, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s unequivocal endorsement of Gen Z may prove to be the most politically astute intervention since the agitation began. By recognising the legitimacy of young Indians’ grievances instead of questioning their patriotism, Bhagwat may have prevented a crisis over examination leaks from becoming a lasting rupture with the ruling BJP’s future electorate. While...

Wise Intervention

If the Centre’s response to the NEET protests has been an admixture of vacillation, force and defensiveness, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s unequivocal endorsement of Gen Z may prove to be the most politically astute intervention since the agitation began. By recognising the legitimacy of young Indians’ grievances instead of questioning their patriotism, Bhagwat may have prevented a crisis over examination leaks from becoming a lasting rupture with the ruling BJP’s future electorate. While protesters are readily caricatured as troublemakers or political pawns, Bhagwat has consciously rejected that temptation. By insisting that young demonstrators are neither anti-national nor outsiders but India’s own next generation, he has reframed the debate from one of confrontation to one of responsibility. While the protests spearheaded by Abhijit Dipke and his Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) took a notably ugly turn, leading many citizens to cast aspersions on the motivations on the protestors and their credibility, the controversy over examination leaks is nevertheless a serious and burning issue reflecting deeper anxieties among millions of young Indians about fairness, merit and opportunity. Bhagwat’s admission that “something that shouldn’t happen” had indeed happened, and that such failures indicated “a deficiency” requiring correction, was an important recognition that government institutions must be capable of introspection. Equally striking was his understanding of generational change. His observation that his own generation accepted authority while Gen Z demands logical answers was a graceful acceptance that democratic engagement has evolved. Young Indians today question institutions because they have higher expectations of them. Mature democracies do not fear such questioning, and that is what Bhagwat’s remarks implied. His approach may carry considerable political significance for the ruling BJP. India is one of the world’s youngest democracies, with more than half its population below the age of 35. By 2029, Gen Z will constitute one of the country’s most influential electoral constituencies. Alienating them through dismissive rhetoric or excessive force would have been politically costly. Bhagwat’s unequivocal expression of trust - going so far as to say that if asked to trust blindly, he would trust Gen Z - offers a markedly different message. It tells young Indians that criticism of administrative failures need not place them outside the national mainstream. In doing so, Bhagwat may also have blunted attempts by politically motivated groups to convert legitimate student grievances into a broader campaign of perpetual confrontation. Every democracy contains forces that seek to transform dissatisfaction into lasting alienation from constitutional politics. The surest antidote is not denunciation but through engagement. By recognising the legitimacy of protest while emphasising dialogue and democratic methods, Bhagwat has reduced the space for those seeking to escalate anger into indiscriminate agitation.

DNA Forensics and Justice: How Science Is Reshaping India’s Courts

DNA is the essence of life—and an ever-expanding frontier where science, society, and justice continue to uncover new possibilities.

Law and DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) science often intersect, especially in criminal and family law. These intersections appear in many situations, such as using DNA to establish paternity or maternity in succession disputes or maintenance cases. They also raise ethical questions, including the risk of undermining a child’s legitimacy and future.


DNA evidence can both convict and exonerate. As science advances, its role in forensic evidence continues to expand. This article examines how DNA science supports the pursuit of justice in criminal forensics and also how it can sometimes hinder it. It also examines how the new criminal laws address this inconsistency.


Being free from human biases, DNA evidence offers credible objectivity that human evidence fails at. Hence, it provides strong persuasive value for justice. An optimist would believe that DNA forensics not only simplifies investigations but also makes judicial decision-making easier. Such optimism must be tempered with caution – no investigation is easy, as when ease in investigation creeps in, it happens with the help of procedural shortcuts, often to the detriment of an innocent.


One of the most harrowing cases that shook the core of the country was the murder of Pradyuman Thakur in 2017. The irony that a little boy gets his life taken away within the safe premises of his school instigated a public outcry that demanded swift justice for Pradyuman. The initial investigation by the Gurugram Police nearly derailed this pursuit, and within 24 hours, a culprit was brought to the fore, the bus conductor named Ashok Kumar, with unsubstantiated circumstantial evidence.


However, he was saved when the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over and told the court that there was no evidence against Ashok Kumar in the Pradyuman murder case, as DNA reports ruled out his involvement.


Conversely, the Chhawla Gangrape-Murder Case of 2012 demonstrates how conclusive and scientific evidence cannot stand up to judicial scrutiny in the event of a shoddy investigation. DNA markers were found at several locations of the crime scene, and the semen of one of the accused was found in the vaginal swab of the victim. Poorly executed investigation cast a shadow of doubt on the credibility of evidence, and the court had to acquit the accused, even suggesting the possibility of evidence tampering.


The two cases discussed represent the two opposite ends of the spectrum – in one, DNA forensics safeguarded an innocent. In other words, it proved to be of no value due to investigative deficiencies. The variable underlying this disparity can be attributed to the integrity of the investigation.


The new criminal laws – Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bhartiya SakshyaAdhiniyam (BSA) – mark a landmark shift in the legal framework, especially in its approach to forensics. Section 176(3) of the BNSS mandates that forensic experts inspect the scene of a crime and that such inspections be video recorded. This has revolutionised the forensic investigation by maximising transparency and minimising discrepancies. Had this provision existed during the Chhawla murder, it would have preserved the integrity of the police investigation, and the true picture would have become clear.


To conclude, while DNA forensics is a powerful tool to meet the ends of justice, the interplay between the new laws and their implication on the investigation procedure is detrimental to the future of forensic evidence. If the aim is achieved, DNA forensics will emerge as the guardian of justice and a deterrent to crime.


(Dr. Kumar is a retired IPS officer and forensic advisor to the Assam Government. Manya Jain is a student of National Forensic University, Guwahati.)

Comments

bottom of page